The National Question in Our Programme

Inour draft Party programme we have advanced the demand for a republic
      with a democratic constitution that would guarantee, among other things,
      “recognition of the right to self-determination for all nations
      forming part of the state.” Many did not find this demand in our programme
      sufficiently clear, and in issue No. 33, in speaking about the Manifesto
      of the Armenian Social-Democrats, we explained the meaning of this point
      in the following way. The Social-Democrats will always combat every
      attempt to influence national self-determination from without by violence
      or by any injustice. However, our unreserved recognition of the struggle
      for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to
      supporting every demand for national self-determination. As the party of
      the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party considers i to be its
      positive and principal task to further the self-determination of the
      proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. We
      must always and unreservedly work for thevery closestunity of
      the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and
      exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands
      conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution
      of a looser federal unity, etc., for the complete political unity of a

      state.[* See pp. 326-29 of this
	volume.—Ed.]

Thisexplanation of our programme on the national question has evoked a
      strong protest from the Polish Socialist Party

      (P.S.P.).[1]In an article
      entitled “The Attitude of the Russian Social-Democrats Towards the
      National Question”(Przedświt,[Dawn.—Ed.]

      March 1903), the P.S.P. expresses indignation at this
      “amazing” explanation and at the “vagueness” of
      this “mysterious” self-determination of ours; it accuses us
      both of doctrinairism and of holding the “anarchist” view that
      “the worker is concerned with nothing but the complete abolition of
      capitalism, since, we learn, language, nationality, culture, and the like
      are mere bourgeois inventions,” and so on. It is worth considering this
      argument in detail, for it reveals almost all the misconceptions in the
      national question so common and so widespread among socialists.

Whatmakes our explanation so “amazing”? Why is it considered a
      departure from the “literal” meaning? Does recognition of therightof nations to self-determination really implysupportof any demand of every nation for self-determination?
      After all, the fact that we recognise therightof all citizens
      to form free associations does not at all commit us, Social-Democrats, tosupportingthe formation of any new association; nor does it
      prevent us from opposing and campaigning against the formation of a given
      association as an inexpedient and unwise step. We even recognise therightof the Jesuits to carry on agitation freely, but we fight
      (not by police methods, of course) against an alliance between the Jesuits
      and the proletarians. Consequently, when thePrzedświtsays;
      “If t.his demand for the right to free self-determination is to be
      taken literally [and that is how we have taken it hitherto], then it would
      satisfy us”—it is quite obvious that it is precisely the P.S.P. that
      is departing from the literal meaning of the programme. Its conclusion is
      certainly illogical from the formal point of view.

Wedo not, however, wish to confine ourselves to a formal verification of
      our explanation. We shall go straight to the root of the matter: is
      Social-Democracy in duty bound to demand national independence always and
      unreservedly, or only under certain circumstances; if the latter is the
      case then under what circumstances? To this question the P.S.P. has always
      replied in favour of unreserved recognition; we are not in the least
      surprised, therefore, at the fondness it displays towards the Russian
      Socialist-Revolutionaries, whodemand a federal state system and speak in favour of “complete and
      unreserved recognition of the right to national self-determination”
      (Revolutsionnaya Rossiya, No. 18, the article entitled
      “National Enslavement and Revolutionary Socialism”). Unfortunately,
      this is nothing more than one of those bourgeois-democratic phrases which,
      for the hundredth and thousandth time, reveal the true nature of the
      so-called Party of so-called Socialist-Revolutionaries. By falling for the
      bait presented by these phrases and yielding to the allurement of this
      clamour, the P.S.P. in its turn proves how weak in theoretical background
      and political activities is its link with the class struggle of the
      proletariat. But it is to the interests of this struggle that we mustsubordinatethe demand for national self-determination. It is
      this that makes all the difference between our approach to the national
      question and the bourgeois-democratic approach. The bourgeois democrat
      (and the present-day socialist opportunist who follows in his footsteps)
      imagines that democracy eliminates the class struggle, and that is why he
      presents all his political demands in an abstract way, lumped together,
      “without reservations,” from the standpoint of the interests of the
      “whole people,” or even from that of an eternal and absolute moral
      principle. Always and every where the Social-Democrat ruthlessly exposes
      this bourgeois illusion, whether it finds expression in an abstract
      idealist philosophy or in an absolute demand for national independence.

Ifthere is still need to prove that a Marxist can recognise the demand
      for national independence only conditionally, namely, on the condition
      indicated above, let us quote a writer whodefendedfrom the
      Marxist viewpoint the Polish proletarians’ demand for an independent
      Poland. In 1896 Karl Kautsky wrote in an article entitled “Finis

      Poloniae?” [“The End of
	Poland?”—Ed.]:

      “Once the proletariat tackles the Polish question it cannot but take
      a stand in favour of Poland’s independence, and, consequently, it cannot
      but welcome each step that can be taken in this direction at the present
      time, insofar as this step is at all compatible with the class interests
      of the international militant

      proletariat ."

“Thisreservation,” Kautsky goes on to say, “should be made in
      any case.National independence is not so inseparably linked with the
      class interests of the militant proletariat as to make it necessary to
      strive for it unconditionally, under any

	circumstances.[Italics ours.]

      Marx and Engels took a most deter mined stand in favour of the unification
      and liberation of Italy, but this did not prevent them from coming out in
      1859 against an Italy allied with Napoleon.” (Neue Zeit, XIV, 2,
      5. 520.)

Asyou see, Kautsky categorically rejects theunconditional·demand for the independence of nations, and
      categorically demands that the question be placed not merely on a
      historical basis in general, but specifically on a class basis. And if we
      examine how Marx and Engels treated the Polish question, we shall see that
      this was precisely their approach to it from the very outset.Die Neue
      Rheinische

	Zeitung[2]devoted much space to the Polish question, and emphatically demanded,not
      only the independence of Poland, but also that Germany go to war with
      Russia for Poland’s freedom. At the same time Marx, however, attacked
      Ruge, who had spoken in favour of Poland’s freedom in the Frankfort
      Parliament and had tried to settle the Polish question solely by means of
      bourgeois-democratic phrases about “shameful injustice,” without
      making any attempt to analyse it historically. Marx was not like those
      pedants and philistines of the revolution who dread nothing more than
      “polemics” at revolutionary moments in history. Marx poured
      pitiless scorn on the “humane” citizen Ruge, and showed him,
      from the example of the oppression of the south of France by the north of
      France, that it is not every kind of national oppression that invariably
      inspires a desire for independence which is justified from the viewpoint
      of democracy and the proletariat. Marx referred to special social
      circumstances as a result of which “Poland ... became the
      revolutionary part of Russia, Austria, and Prussia.... Even the Polish
      nobility, although their foundations were still partly feudal, adhered to
      the democratic agrarian revolution with unparalleled selflessness. Poland
      was already a seat of East-European democracy at a time when Germany was still groping her way through the most platitudinous
      constitutional and high-flown philosophical ideology...

      So long as we [Germans] ... help to oppress Poland, so long as we keep
      part of Poland fettered to Germany, we shall remain fettered to Russia and
      Russian policy, we shall be unable completely to smash patriarchal feudal
      absolutism at home. The creation of a democratic Poland is the primary
      prerequisite of the creation of a democratic

      Germany.”[3]

Wehave quoted these statements in such detail because they graphically
      show the historical background at a time when the attitude of
      international Social-Democracy to the Polish problem took shape in a way
      which held good almost throughout the second half of the nineteenth
      century. To ignore the changes which have taken place in that back ground
      and to continue advocating the old solutions given by Marxism, would mean
      being true to the letter but not to the spirit of the teaching, would mean
      repeating the old conclusions by rote, without being able to use the
      Marxist method of research to analyse the new political situation. Those
      times and today—the age of the last bourgeois revolutionary
      movements, and the age of desperate reaction, extreme tension of all
      forces on the eve of the proletarian revolution— differ in the most
      obvious way.In those timesPoland as a whole, not only the
      peasantry, but even the bulk of the nobility, was revolutionary. The
      traditions of the struggle for national liberation were so strong and
      deep-rooted that, after their defeat at home, Poland’s best sons went
      wherever they could find a revolutionary class to support; the memory of
      Dąbrowski and of

      Wróblewski[4]is inseparably associated with the greatest movement of the proletariat in
      the nineteenth century, with the last—and let us hope the last
      unsuccessful—insurrection of the Paris workers.In those
      timescomplete victory for democracy in Europe was indeed impossible
      without the restoration of Poland.In those timesPoland was
      indeed the bulwark of civilisation against tsarism, and the vanguard of
      democracy.To daythe Polish ruling classes, the gentry in
      Germany and in Austria, and the industrial and financial magnates in
      Russia are supporting the ruling classes of the countries that oppress
      Poland, while the German and the Russian proletariat are fighting for
      freedom side by side with the Polishproletariat, which has heroically taken over the great traditions of the
      old revolutionary Poland.Todaythe advanced representatives of
      Marxism in the neighbouring country, while attentively watching the
      political evolution of Europe and fully sympathising with the heroic
      struggle of the Poles, nevertheless frankly admit that “at present
      St. Petersburg has become a much more important revolutionary centre than
      Warsaw, and the Russian revolutionary movement is already of greater
      international significance than the Polish movement.” This is what Kautsky
      wrote as early as 1896, in defending the inclusion in the Polish
      Social-Democrats’ programme of the demand for Poland’s restoration. And in
      1902 Mehring, who has been studying the evolution of the Polish question
      since 1848, arrived at the following conclusion: “Had the Polish
      proletariat desired to inscribe on its banner the restoration of a Polish
      class state, which the ruling classes themselves do not want to hear of,
      it would be playing a historical farce; this may well happen to the
      propertied classes (as, for instance, the Polish nobility in 1791), but it
      should never happen to the working class. If, on the other hand, this
      reactionary Utopia comes out to win over to proletarian agitation those
      sections of the intelligentsia and of the petty bourgeoisie which still
      respond in some measure to national agitation, then that Utopia is doubly
      untenable as an outgrowth of that unworthy opportunism which sacrifices
      the long-term interests of the working class to the cheap and paltry
      successes of the moment.

“Thoseinterests dictate categorically that, in all three states that
      have partitioned Poland, the Polish workers should fight unreservedly side
      by side with their class comrades. The times are past when a bourgeois
      revolution could create a free Poland: today the renascence of Poland is
      possible only through a social revolution, in the course of which the
      modern proletariat will break its

      chains.”[5]

Wefully subscribe to Mehring’s conclusion. We shall only remark that this
      conclusion remains unassailable even if we do not go as far as Mehring in
      our arguments. With out any doubt the present state of the Polish question
      differs radically from that which obtained fifty years ago. However, the
      present situation cannot be regarded as permanent. Class antagonism has
      now undoubtedly relegated nationalquestions far into the background, but, without the risk of lapsing into
      doctrinairism, it cannot be categorically asserted that some particular
      national question cannot appear temporarily in the foreground of the
      political drama. No doubt, the restoration of Poland prior to the fall of
      capitalism is highly improbable, but it cannot be asserted that it is
      absolutely impossible, or that circumstances may not arise under which the
      Polish bourgeoisie will take the side of independence, etc. And Russian
      Social-Democracy does not in the least intend to tie its own hands. In
      including in its programme recognition of the right of nations to self-
      determination, it takes into accountallpossible, and even allconceivable, combinations. That programme in no way precludes the
      adoption by the Polish proletariat of the slogan of a free and independent
      Polish republic, even though the probability of its becoming a reality
      before socialism is introduced is infinitesimal. The programme merely
      demands that a genuinely socialist party shall not corrupt proletarian
      class-consciousness, or slur over the class struggle, or lure working
      class with bourgeois-democratic phrases, or break the unity of the
      proletariat’s present-day political struggle. This reservation is the crux
      of the matter, for only with this reservation do we recognise
      self-determination. It is useless for the P.S.P. to pretend that it
      differs from the German or Russian Social-Democrats in their rejection of
      the right to self-determination, the right to strive for a free and
      independent republic. It is not this, but the fact that it loses. sight of
      the class point of view, obscures it by chauvinism and disrupts the unity
      of the present-day political struggle, that prevents us from regarding the
      P.S.P. as a genuine Social-Democratic workers’ party. This, for instance,
      is how the P.S.P. usually presents the question: “...We can only
      weaken tsarism by wresting Poland from it; it is the task of the Russian
      comrades to overthrow it.” Or again: “... After the over throw of
      tsarism we would simply decide our fate by seceding from Russia.” See to
      what monstrous conclusions this monstrous logic leads, even from the
      viewpoint of the programme demand for Poland’s
      restoration.Becausethe restoration of Poland is one of the
      possible (but, whilst the bourgeoisie rules, by no means absolutely
      certain) consequences of democratic evolution,thereforethe
      Polishproletariat must not fight together with the Russian proletariat to
      overthrow tsarism, but “only” to weaken it by wresting Poland
      from it.BecauseRussian tsarism is concluding a closer and
      closer alliance with the bourgeoisie and the governments of Germany,
      Austria, etc.,thereforethe Polish proletariat must weaken its
      alliance with the proletariat of Russia, Germany, etc., together with whom
      it is now fighting againstone and the sameyoke. This is nothing
      more than sacrificing the most vital interests of the proletariat to the
      bourgeois-democratic conception of national independence. The
      disintegration of Russia which the P.S.P. desires,as distinct
      fromour aim of overthrowing tsarism, is and will remain an empty
      phrase, as long as economic development continues to bring the different
      parts of a political whole more and more closely together, and as long as
      the bourgeoisie of all countries unite more and more closely against their
      common enemy, the proletariat, and in support of their common ally, the
      tsar. Butthe division of the forces of the proletariat, which is
      now suffering under the yoke of this autocracy, is the sad reality, the
      direct consequence of the error of the P.S.P., the direct outcome of its
      worship of bourgeois-democratic formulas. To turn a blind eye to this
      division of the proletariat, the P.S.P. has to stoop to chauvinism and
      present the views of the Russian Social-Democrats as follows: “We
      [the Poles] must wait for the social revolution, and until then we must
      patiently endure national oppression.”  This is an utter falsehood. The
      Russian Social-Democrats have never advised anything of the sort; on the
      contrary, they themselves fight, and call upon the whole Russian
      proletariat to fight, against all manifestations of national oppression in
      Russia; they include intheirprogramme not only complete
      equality of status for all languages, nationalities, etc., but also
      recognition of every nation’s right to determine its own
      destiny. Recognising this right, wesubordinateto the interests
      of the proletarian struggle our support of the demand for national
      independence, and only a chauvinist can interpret our position as an
      expression of a Russian s mistrust of a non-Russian, for in reality this
      position necessarily follows from the class-conscious proletarian’s
      distrust of the bourgeoisie. The P.S.P. takes the view that the national
      question isexhaustedby the contrast—“we” (Poles)
      and “they”(Germans, Russians, etc.). The Social-Democrat, however, gives first place
      to the contrast— “we,” the proletarians, and “they,” the
      bourgeoisie. “We,” the proletarians, have seen dozens of times how
      the bourgeoisiebetraysthe interests of freedom, motherland,
      language, and nation, when it is con fronted with the revolutionary
      proletariat. We witnessed the French bourgeoisie’s surrender to the
      Prussians at the moment of the greatest humiliation and suppression of the
      French nation, the Government of National Defence becoming a Government of
      National Defection, the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation calling to its
      aid the troops of the oppressing nation so as to crush its proletarian
      fellow countrymen, who had dared to assume power. And that is why,
      undeterred by chauvinist and opportunist heckling, we shall always say to
      the Polish workers: only the most complete and intimate alliance with the
      Russian proletariat can meet the requirements of the present political
      struggle against the autocracy; only such an alliance can guarantee
      complete political and economic emancipation.

Whatwe have said on the Polish question is wholly applicable to every
      other national question. The accursed history of autocracy has left us a
      legacy of tremendousestrangementbetween the working classes of
      the various nationalities oppressed by that autocracy. This estrangement
      is a very great evil, a very great obstacle in the struggle against the
      autocracy, and we must not legitimise this evil or sanctify this
      outrageous state of affairs by establishing any such
      “principles” as separate parties or a “federation”
      of parties. It is, of course, simpler and easier to follow the line of
      least resistance, and for everyone to make himself comfortable in his own
      corner following the rule, “it’s none of my business,” as the Bund
      now wants to do. The more we realise the need for unity and the more
      firmly we are convinced that a concerted offensive against the autocracy
      is impossible without complete unity, the more obvious becomes the
      necessity for a centralised organisation of the struggle in the conditions
      of our political system—the less inclined are we to be satisfied
      with a “simple,” but specious and, at bottom, profoundly false
      solution of the problem. So long as the injuriousness of estrangement is
      not realised, and so long as there is no desire to put an end radically
      and at all costs to thisestrangement in the camp of the proletarian party, there is no need for
      the fig-leaf of “federation,” and no use in under taking to solve a
      problem which one of the “sides” concerned has no real desire
      to solve. That being the case, it is better to let the lessons of
      experience and of the actual movement prove that centralism is essential
      for success in the struggle waged by the proletarians of all nationalities
      oppressed by autocracy against that autocracy and against the
      international bourgeoisie, which is becoming more and more united.

[1]The Polish Socialist Party (P.S.P.)—a petty-bourgeois
      nationalist party, founded in 1892.

[2]Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New Rhenish Gazette) appeared in
      Cologne from June 1, 1848, until May 19, 1849. Marx and Engels were
      managers of this newspaper, Marx being editor-in-chief. As Lenin put it,
      the newspaper was “the best, the unsurpassed organ of the
      revolutionary proletariat” (see present edition, Vol. 21,
      “Karl Marx”). It educated the masses, roused them to fight the
      counter-revolution, and made its influence felt throughout
      Germany. Because of its resolute and irreconcilable position and its
      militant internationalism, theNeue Rheinische Zeitungwas from
      the first months of its existence persecuted by the feudal-monarchist and
      liberal-bourgeois press, and also by the government. Marx’s deportation by
      the Prussian Government and the repressive measures against its other
      editors led to the paper ceasing publication, About theNeue
      Rheinische Zeitungsee the article by Engels, “Marx and theNeue Rheinische Zeitung(1848-49)” (Marx and Engels,Selected
      Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1958, pp. 328-37).

[3]Lenin is quoting from the series of articles printed under the general
      title of “Debates on the Polish Question in Frankfort” in theNeue Rheinische Zeitungin August-September 1848. SeeMEGA, Erste Abteilung, Band 7, S. 287-317. Engels was the author
      of these articles.

[4]Dąbrowski, Jaroslaw and Wróblewski,
	Walery—prominent leaders of the Polish revolutionary movement
      in1863-64, who emigrated to France after the suppression of the
      Polish uprising. In 1871 they were generals of the Paris Commune.

[5]Lenin is quoting Franz Mehring’s introduction to the third volume of theCollected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1841to1850, which he published in 1902. (Gesammelte Schriften von
      Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, 1841 bis 1850.Dritter Band,
      Stuttgart.  Verlag von J. H. W. Dietz, Nachf., 1902.)